Forum AdAdvertisement

Why do people complain about SA playing boring rugby? Ãin't that the beauty of the game...the fact that it can be played in many different a way...with different results all the time...never knowing what to expect from any game? If rugby was played exactly the same by every single team on this planet, then yes...it would be boring.

The example I had in mind was 2009 where SA incurred a spate of penalties against Aus at the scrum (mind boggingly IMO) and when PdV asked for clarification... nada.

LOL, you guys do realize there is a time difference between NZ and SA?

Anyhooo. I think it's time to accept that myself and others have different viewpoints and that we aren'tg oing to convince each other either way.

Click to expand...

To this guy above - as far as i can remember when the AB's lose or have things refs decisions go against them the coach doesn't ask for clarification or justification or anykindof-fication - he just accepts the decisions and moves on.
Crying over whats done isn't our way and any NZ coach wouldn't last long if he did.

The last few pages were kinda cringe worthy - gotta feel for the saffars, but Wow its like arguing with kids ... arguing for the sake of arguing especially when you are being presented with
fact and conclusive evidence in a fair manner is a lose / lose...... dudes!

Because its boring to watch and not good for the game as a whole. And in SA's case it's also completely unnecessary, they don't have vastly inferior backs or backs who can't run with the ball, they just have coaches and unfortunately a large proportion of a fan base, who wrongly don't believe they can compete on the same level as the AB's and Aussies and can only win by kicking....

To this guy above - as far as i can remember when the AB's lose or have things refs decisions go against them the coach doesn't ask for clarification or justification or anykindof-fication - he just accepts the decisions and moves on.
Crying over whats done isn't our way and any NZ coach wouldn't last long if he did.

The last few pages were kinda cringe worthy - gotta feel for the saffars, but Wow its like arguing with kids ... arguing for the sake of arguing especially when you are being presented with
fact and conclusive evidence in a fair manner is a lose / lose...... dudes!

haha

anyway - good read lads....

Click to expand...

Except that Graham henry did, in fact, go after clarification from Paddy O'Brien after the Italy game and yet still is there. That is fact. Look at Jamie Joseph's hissy fit during the S15.So you can't say never though i'd agree that it's the truth in a majority of cases. Also, instances where perception get involved are never factual in a scientific sense. I LOL'ed hard at ' fact and conclusive evidence'.

To this guy above - as far as i can remember when the AB's lose or have things refs decisions go against them the coach doesn't ask for clarification or justification or anykindof-fication - he just accepts the decisions and moves on.
Crying over whats done isn't our way and any NZ coach wouldn't last long if he did.

Click to expand...

You kidding right ? NZ like all other Nations complain about refs , Your coach of 95 still today claim they were Poissoned. No one Nation accepts decisions like they are. Last WC wrongfully or rightfully the whining after the France game was very deafening !

You think we wrongly believe that we can compete with New Zealand and Australia??? Exactly the reason I stopped posting here. People are ridiculously short-sited.

Click to expand...

He used a double negative so is saying we believe we can't but in fact could if we tried (to play 'running' rugby). Ehhh. Alot of it has to do with our culture of rugby; what we appreciate isn't necessarily what others appreciate. Is it so strange that we can see beauty and get excited about a well placed kick or working the ball up through the forwards etc?

Because its boring to watch and not good for the game as a whole. And in SA's case it's also completely unnecessary, they don't have vastly inferior backs or backs who can't run with the ball, they just have coaches and unfortunately a large proportion of a fan base, who wrongly don't believe they can compete on the same level as the AB's and Aussies and can only win by kicking....

Click to expand...

True but to add , I also believe we have to be very careful not to loose the culture of 15 man rugby. I love running rugby , Being from the Western Cape I support my local team WP and the Stormers in Super Rugby , traditionally running rugby teams , having said that sadly we are no longer focussed on scoring tries but instead on winning the game with a strong defence. I lament this fact but also take note of the pureness of it , more and more the game are changing to rugby league. No longer are the props fatties and the locks the tallest. The tight five looks more and more the same nowadays. Hookers can play at centre and wings. Loosies can cover 6,7 and 8 !! Its no longer a specialist game. Sometimes after a S15 weekend the purist in me long for a European game played in the rain with a 6-6 score board. Just saying we already have 7's and league , we need to protect Union a little.

He used a double negative so is saying we believe we can't but in fact could if we tried (to play 'running' rugby). Ehhh. Alot of it has to do with our culture of rugby; what we appreciate isn't necessarily what others appreciate. Is it so strange that we can see beauty and get excited about a well placed kick or working the ball up through the forwards etc?

Click to expand...

Ditto!

and our sentiments will be shared by most NH fans as well. it's just the bloody convicts and the Kiwi's who don't like a good drop goal, a penalty from 55m out or some strong ball carries by the forwards over and over as well as the occasional driving maul...

probably something to do with their guys not being able to do those things...

He used a double negative so is saying we believe we can't but in fact could if we tried (to play 'running' rugby). Ehhh. Alot of it has to do with our culture of rugby; what we appreciate isn't necessarily what others appreciate. Is it so strange that we can see beauty and get excited about a well placed kick or working the ball up through the forwards etc?

and our sentiments will be shared by most NH fans as well. it's just the bloody convicts and the Kiwi's who don't like a good drop goal, a penalty from 55m out or some strong ball carries by the forwards over and over as well as the occasional driving maul...

probably something to do with their guys not being able to do those things...

He used a double negative so is saying we believe we can't but in fact could if we tried (to play 'running' rugby). Ehhh. Alot of it has to do with our culture of rugby; what we appreciate isn't necessarily what others appreciate. Is it so strange that we can see beauty and get excited about a well placed kick or working the ball up through the forwards etc?

Click to expand...

Completely agree with you.

See, the thing is, we play to our strengths. All this talk about 'we kicked our way through the 2007 WC' is rubbish. We thrashed Samoa, with Habana scoring 4 tries, we annihilated Argentina as well as England. The final was very close, and the English didn't allow us to play as flashy as we could. Look what happened to New Zealand against France in that tournament. All they had to do was force a penalty, or at least try to kick a drop goal, but they didn't. We do what we are good at, and that's play to our strengths. New Zealand are by far and away the best defensive side on the planet. If we don't manage to get some go forward through phases, should we just keep trying? No. You take the points that are on offer, then try again.

I don't find any of our rugby boring, but it's no secret that we don't have powerful runners like New Zealand have. Players like Israel Dagg are very very rare, and have a keen eye for running rugby. We don't have the same kind of players, as we put emphasis on physicality and set phases. England are similar, and Wales are as well. It's just the way our guys come through from school level. Most of this constant whinging regarding the excitement of watching the game are from sour fans. We play a traditional game, and play to our strengths.

If we do manage to get to the semi-finals and play New Zealand, then I would rather have our game plan in taking points on offer, and fighting for territory, than try to please fans with flashy moves and running out of our own 22. If the game opens up, we have the ability to score the points, and that is far more important than trying to look the flashiest.

Like I said though, New Zealand and Australia have devastating runners. Players like Dagg,SBW,Beale,Ioane and Dan Carter know exactly who to run at, and when to kick. We play a forward orientated game, and apart from Spies, Habana and Aplon, we don't have any players that have the kind of flair and savvy that the Australasians have. We prefer big ball carriers, and try to get ourselves into a position to score points. If it bores you so much, and you can't stand the fact that we can beat any team in the world by taking the points that are on offer, then simply don't watch, and wait for the hilights reel so that you can **** off all you like to the 100m tries, not taking the end result into consideration of course.

Except that Graham henry did, in fact, go after clarification from Paddy O'Brien after the Italy game and yet still is there.

Click to expand...

That is not right. It was the other way around... POB went to GH and and apologised for the incompetent performance of his referee, Dickinson.

If you want to see who is not there anymore, its Stuart Dickinson. He hasn't been selected to referee a Six Nations or Tri-Nations match since his 2009 San Siro train wreck, he has missed selection for RWC, and in fact has only been appointed to two tests in over 2Â½ years; Argentina v France in BA, June 2010, and the All Blacks v Fiji a few weeks back, and he only got that because it was a late addition to the fixture list and no-other referees were available.

His abysmal display in the Reds v Crusaders match is further proof that he has not improved.

Jericho

I struggle to understand why you have two outstanding ball running players in Jacque Fourie and Jean deVilliers, and use them as nothing more than kick-chasers. These two would walk into any Super Rugby side in NZ.

and our sentiments will be shared by most NH fans as well. it's just the bloody convicts and the Kiwi's who don't like a good drop goal, a penalty from 55m out or some strong ball carries by the forwards over and over as well as the occasional driving maul...

probably something to do with their guys not being able to do those things...

Click to expand...

Couldn't give a crap how your team scores your points, or the style that you play ... the main thing for ANY TEAM is that they play to their own strengths, and try to assert dominance, and dictate how the game is played. South Africa was dominant and rightfully won this game.

... If some people don't like how South Africa played the game - tough luck!, there's more than one way to win a match! ... if you, or anyone else don't like others opinions on how South Africa (or any other team) plays the game, that's also tough ... it's a forum, and opinions that are different from your own are normal, and healthy, so providing there's no name calling or personal attacks, it's all okay in my book.

... To the poster(s) that imply that All black supporters are poor losers because they criticised All Black players, this was effectively a trial match for World Cup squad positions, so yes, there is going to be some discussion on how well or poorly some players went

... it's no different from any other post match comment for any game between any nations, that occur on this forum anyway.

People, if you honestly can't handle opinions contrary to your own, why are you on a forum in the first place? ... maybe it's time to step away from the computer for a while

I don't buy the whole we don't have the same quality backs ergo we have to play this negative style that capitilises on our strengths...The quality of the backs we see in the curry cup and super 15 with players like pretorious, aplon, fourie, de jongh, lambie etc completely contradict that argument.

And the reason NH teams have traditionally played a more conservative territory based game is because of the conditions they normally play in, not by choice, and even now England and all the other NH teams have a far more exciting attacking back orientated ball in hand mindset than SA at present.

It just seems you have an administration at the highest level, and a fan base, that is solely focused on a win at all costs mentality, rather than looking at the future and the way the game is evolving.

Stormer your actually mistaken - but you won't admit it so i won't bother....

Show me where the coach whined after the last world cup - i remember him just saying "We can't blame the referee, these things happen" etc .... where do you get this stuff - do you just make it up and think if you say
it with as much conviction as you can that it will come true.

As for 95 no-one denies that the AB's had food poisoning - and the team were this close to not even playing because of it ....
They kept it quiet and even after losing the game didn't mention the extent of the poisoning to any media locally or internationally.

It wasn't until the extent of the poisoning became clear that comments were made and if i remember right a Saffar private investigator was hired by Laurie Mains to find out how it happened and blamed on a mysterious waitress named Suzie.

Most of us just think they got food poisoning - whether intentionally or not it happened,,,, no-ones crying about it....

It really wasn't huge news until Rory Steyn, who was in charge of the AB's security wrote a book about his time as chief of security for Mandela ...
in it he wrote about the poisoning "Steyn says in the book:We raced back to the hotel and when I got up to the doctor's room it looked like a battle zone - like a scene from a war movie. Players were lying all over the place and the doctor and physio were walking around injecting them. I was a police officer, I worked with facts. What my eyes told me that night was that the team had deliberately been poisoned.
He said the illness which had swept through the team had a major impact on the All Blacks' preparation for the final. I had to endure accusations of complicity in this, from New Zealand officials, and I was very angry that this was allowed to happen in my country - to people in my care. South African rugby fans remained skeptical of this theory and preferred to put it down to sour Kiwi grapes. To my fellow South Africans I want to say this: Stop all those cheap jokes about Suzie, the food poisoning and whingeing Kiwis. It happened. There is no doubt that the All Blacks were poisoned two days before the final."

Anyway it is what it is ... and

When you gotta look back 15 years to find a whinge your reaching HARD! haha

That is not right. It was the other way around... POB went to GH and and apologised for the incompetent performance of his referee, Dickinson.

If you want to see who is not there anymore, its Stuart Dickinson. He hasn't been selected to referee a Six Nations or Tri-Nations match since his 2009 San Siro train wreck, he has missed selection for RWC, and in fact has only been appointed to two tests in over 2Â½ years; Argentina v France in BA, June 2010, and the All Blacks v Fiji a few weeks back, and he only got that because it was a late addition to the fixture list and no-other referees were available.

His abysmal display in the Reds v Crusaders match is further proof that he has not improved.

Jericho

I struggle to understand why you have two outstanding ball running players in Jacque Fourie and Jean deVilliers, and use them as nothing more than kick-chasers. These two would walk into any Super Rugby side in NZ.

What a waste of good talent.

Click to expand...

If that's the case then the journo's of all the articles I've read were incorrect and my point would be insubstantial. Anyway, not too sure why I keep it up; clearly I am wrong and there is no substance to any of my posts. I include 1 link to an article I read that fueled some of my points (from a NZ source; though probably not originally as these web posters love to copy and past) just in case anyone calls for 'prove' again. Not that I put much faith in anything I erad on te internet (or the extended media for that matter).

Couldn't give a crap how your team scores your points, or the style that you play ... the main thing for ANY TEAM is that they play to their own strengths, and try to assert dominance, and dictate how the game is played. South Africa was dominant and rightfully won this game.

... If some people don't like how South Africa played the game - tough luck!, there's more than one way to win a match! ... if you, or anyone else don't like others opinions on how South Africa (or any other team) plays the game, that's also tough ... it's a forum, and opinions that are different from your own are normal, and healthy, so providing there's no name calling or personal attacks, it's all okay in my book.

... To the poster(s) that imply that All black supporters are poor losers because they criticised All Black players, this was effectively a trial match for World Cup squad positions, so yes, there is going to be some discussion on how well or poorly some players went

... it's no different from any other post match comment for any game between any nations, that occur on this forum anyway.

People, if you honestly can't handle opinions contrary to your own, why are you on a forum in the first place? ... maybe it's time to step away from the computer for a while

I don't buy the whole we don't have the same quality backs ergo we have to play this negative style that capitilises on our strengths...The quality of the backs we see in the curry cup and super 15 with players like pretorious, aplon, fourie, de jongh, lambie etc completely contradict that argument.

And the reason NH teams have traditionally played a more conservative territory based game is because of the conditions they normally play in, not by choice, and even now England and all the other NH teams have a far more exciting attacking back orientated ball in hand mindset than SA at present.

It just seems you have an administration at the highest level, and a fan base, that is solely focused on a win at all costs mentality, rather than looking at the future and the way the game is evolving.

Click to expand...

We have teams at many levels that are playing a broader brand of rugby; Cheetahs have been a running team since way back when (weak at other facets though as they annualy experience a mass player exodus and can't form that tight-knit unit to actually push for higher honors) and though other teams have different emphasis most of them do in fact have a running game; even the Blue Bulls (who has scored the most tries in a number tournament over recent years). Sharks love to run the ball are have great supporting play. They run with the forwards as much as the backs though and the interplay is always inspiring IMO. We do have the talent, yes but probably not in the abundance of NZ ITO backs but we do in the forwards so that's where our emphasis lies. Also, the quality of our backs and their running has been steadily increasing and though PdV has kept the faith in the players and gameplan (watered down though or rather over-emphasized/over-focussed) we will probably see a more holistic approach post RWC when we hopefully get a competent coach. Look for guys like JdJ, Lambie, Ebersohn, Taute etc to bring a bit more flair into our test matches but at the moment and with the guys that have been around the Springbok fold, a slightly more conservative approach is better (for the aims of winning a RWC).